ServiceNow innovation dies without clear funding models and strategic investment criteria. Organisations that establish a Centre of Excellence and Innovation (CoEI) with structured financial governance see 30-40% better resource allocation, demonstrable ROI, and sustained innovation growth. The difference between thriving platforms and stagnant implementations isn't technical capability, it's financial strategy.

In most organisations, brilliant ServiceNow innovations languish in backlog purgatory whilst teams argue over who pays for what. Platform teams submit business cases that disappear into approval limbo. Finance questions every investment. Business units hoard budgets. Meanwhile, competitors are automating processes you're still doing manually.

The dysfunction is specific and costly. Innovation proposals sit in 14-day approval cycles. Teams can't distinguish between strategic initiatives and tactical fixes. Projects launch without clear success criteria, making it impossible to justify continued investment. When budget reviews arrive, ServiceNow improvements get lumped with 'IT spending' rather than recognised as business transformation.

Without defined funding models and investment frameworks, even the most capable platforms underdeliver. It's not a technology problem, it's a financial governance problem.

The answer isn't more budget, it's smarter financial architecture. Organisations that treat ServiceNow innovation as a strategic investment portfolio rather than an IT expense fundamentally change the conversation.

This starts with establishing a Centre of Excellence and Innovation (CoEI) that centralises financial governance whilst distributing innovation accountability. Think of it as your investment committee for platform capabilities, evaluating proposals against strategic criteria, allocating resources based on expected returns, and measuring outcomes to justify continued funding.

The CoEI doesn't control all innovation (that kills agility). Instead, it provides the financial frameworks that make innovation sustainable; clear funding models, prioritisation criteria, value measurement standards, and governance guardrails. It's the difference between ad-hoc project funding and systematic capability investment.

Critically, this approach integrates value measurement from day one. Every innovation must articulate its expected business impact and demonstrate actual returns. This transparency transforms stakeholder relationships, finance becomes an innovation partner rather than a gatekeeper.

You wouldn't manage your organisation's financial investments without a clear strategy, risk assessment, and performance tracking. Yet that's exactly how most organisations approach ServiceNow innovation; scattershot projects, unclear ownership, and no systematic way to evaluate returns.

ServiceNow represents one of your largest technology investments. The platform touches every department, automates critical processes, and directly impacts customer and employee experience. Treating platform innovation as discretionary IT spending rather than strategic capability investment is leaving value on the table.

The organisations that extract maximum value from ServiceNow think differently. They recognise that platform innovation requires the same financial rigour as any other investment portfolio; clear allocation strategies, risk-adjusted returns, and systematic governance. Building this financial architecture requires understanding both the opportunity and the constraints.

The first step is acknowledging that innovation funding isn't a single decision, it's an ongoing investment strategy. Just as portfolio managers balance growth stocks with stable assets, platform teams must balance transformational initiatives with incremental improvements.

This starts with defining clear funding models. Most organisations default to one of three approaches, each with distinct trade-offs…

Centralised funding pools resources at the enterprise level, typically through the CoEI. This model excels at funding strategic, cross-functional initiatives that no single business unit would sponsor. For instance, implementing Strategic Portfolio Management benefits the entire organisation but doesn't naturally fit any department's budget. Centralised funding solves this coordination problem whilst maintaining strategic alignment.

The challenge? Centralised models can feel distant from business unit needs. Teams may perceive the CoEI as a bottleneck rather than an enabler. Mitigation requires transparent prioritisation criteria and regular stakeholder engagement.

Decentralised funding distributes innovation budgets to individual business units or departments. This approach maximises agility, teams can respond quickly to local needs without navigating enterprise approval processes. It works brilliantly for department-specific automations or process improvements.

However, decentralised funding struggles with platform-wide initiatives. Who pays for upgrading the underlying architecture? How do you prevent duplicate solutions across departments? Without coordination, you risk fragmented implementations and missed economies of scale.

Hybrid funding combines both approaches, and it's where most mature organisations land. Core platform capabilities, shared services, and strategic initiatives receive centralised funding. Department-specific innovations draw from local budgets but follow common standards and governance.

For example, upgrading to the latest ServiceNow release might be centrally funded, whilst building out the HR Service Delivery (HRSD) application for HR comes from the HR budget. The CoEI provides the governance framework and technical standards; business units provide the funding and requirements for their specific needs.

The key is making these funding boundaries explicit. Teams shouldn't waste time debating who pays, your financial model should make it obvious.

The CoEI serves as your innovation investment committee, but it's not a bureaucratic approval board. Done right, it's the enabler that makes systematic innovation possible.

Think of the CoEI as having three primary functions: strategic planning, financial governance, and capability development. On strategic planning, the CoEI maintains your platform roadmap, the multi-year view of where capabilities are heading. This roadmap guides funding decisions, ensuring investments build towards a coherent vision rather than accumulating as disconnected projects.

Financial governance is where the CoEI earns its keep. It establishes investment criteria, evaluates proposals, allocates resources, and measures returns. Critically, it provides the transparency that makes stakeholders comfortable funding innovation. When finance can see clear evaluation criteria and measurable outcomes, budget conversations shift from defensive justifications to strategic discussions.

Capability development ensures the organisation can actually execute innovations. The CoEI identifies skill gaps, provides training, establishes best practices, and shares lessons learnt across teams. This prevents the common pattern where innovations fail not from poor ideas but from inadequate execution capability.

Structurally, effective CoEIs balance centralisation with distribution. A small core team (typically 3-7 people) provides coordination, governance, and strategic direction. This team includes a Platform Owner who maintains the strategic vision, a Financial Governance Lead who manages investment decisions, and Technical Architects who ensure feasibility.

However, the CoEI isn't an ivory tower. It operates through working groups that include representatives from business units, IT, and key stakeholder departments. These groups evaluate proposals, share knowledge, and ensure the CoEI remains connected to real business needs.

Most innovation programmes collapse because they can't articulate value in terms stakeholders care about. Technical teams celebrate successful deployments whilst business leaders wonder what they got for their investment.

Value measurement must start before funding approval. Every innovation proposal should include specific, measurable success criteria. Not vague goals like 'improve efficiency', concrete metrics like 'reduce incident resolution time by 30%' or 'automate 500 manual approvals monthly'.

These metrics fall into several categories. Efficiency gains measure time saved, processes automated, or manual work eliminated. Cost reductions track direct savings from eliminated tools, reduced support needs, or avoided hiring. Revenue impact captures faster time-to-market, improved customer satisfaction, or new capability enablement. Risk mitigation values prevented incidents, improved compliance, or reduced security exposure.

The challenge is attribution, proving your innovation caused the improvement. This requires baseline measurement before implementation and ongoing tracking afterwards. For instance, if you're automating change approvals, measure current approval times, volumes, and error rates. After implementation, track the same metrics and calculate the difference.

Be honest about what you can measure. Some innovations deliver strategic value that's difficult to quantify; improved employee experience, better decision-making, or increased agility. That's fine. Articulate these qualitative benefits clearly whilst focusing measurement on quantifiable outcomes.

Reporting matters as much as measurement. Create a standard value dashboard that shows investment, expected returns, actual returns, and variance. Update it quarterly. Share it with stakeholders proactively. When finance sees consistent delivery against projections, they become innovation advocates rather than sceptics.

You'll always have more innovation ideas than funding. The question is how you choose.

Effective prioritisation balances multiple factors; strategic alignment, expected value, implementation risk, resource requirements, and timing dependencies. The organisations that excel create explicit scoring frameworks that make trade-offs transparent.

Strategic alignment asks: does this innovation advance our platform vision and business objectives? Initiatives that enable future capabilities or address critical gaps score higher than nice-to-have improvements. For instance, implementing IT Service Management best practices might enable subsequent automation that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

Expected value considers both magnitude and probability of returns. A project promising £500,000 in annual savings with 90% confidence scores differently than one projecting £1 million with 40% confidence. Risk-adjusted value provides more realistic prioritisation than optimistic projections.

Implementation risk evaluates technical complexity, organisational change requirements, and dependency management. Some innovations are straightforward; others require extensive customisation, integration, or process redesign. Higher-risk projects need stronger justification and more robust governance.

Resource requirements look beyond budget to consider skills, time, and organisational capacity. Can your team actually execute this innovation alongside other commitments? Do you have the necessary expertise, or will you need external support? Realistic resource assessment prevents overcommitment.

Timing dependencies matter more than teams often recognise. Some innovations must happen sequentially, you can't automate a process that doesn't exist yet. Others create platform capabilities that unlock future innovations. Sequencing investments strategically accelerates overall value delivery.

The CoEI should maintain a transparent prioritisation framework that scores proposals against these criteria. When teams understand how decisions are made, they submit better proposals and accept prioritisation outcomes more readily.

Governance gets a bad reputation because it's often implemented poorly, bureaucratic approval processes that slow everything down without adding value. Effective governance does the opposite: it enables faster, better decisions by providing clarity and guardrails.

Start with clear decision rights. Who can approve what level of investment? What requires CoEI review versus local authority? When do you need executive sponsorship? Making these boundaries explicit prevents the 'who needs to approve this?' delays that frustrate teams.

Most organisations adopt tiered approval based on investment size and strategic impact. Small, low-risk innovations (under £25,000, minimal integration) might require only technical review and business unit approval. Medium investments (£25,000-£100,000, moderate complexity) need CoEI evaluation. Large, strategic initiatives (over £100,000, significant organisational impact) require executive sponsorship and formal business case approval.

Risk assessment should be proportional to impact. High-risk innovations need more rigorous evaluation, proof-of-concept validation, and staged funding. Low-risk improvements can move faster with lighter governance. The key is matching oversight to actual risk, not applying uniform processes to everything.

Stage-gate funding works brilliantly for larger innovations. Rather than committing full funding upfront, release it in phases tied to demonstrated progress. Initial funding covers discovery and design. Subsequent releases require proof of concept validation, pilot success, or achievement of interim milestones. This approach limits exposure whilst maintaining momentum.

Regular portfolio reviews keep governance dynamic. The CoEI should review the entire innovation portfolio quarterly, evaluating progress, reallocating resources, and killing projects that aren't delivering. This ongoing curation prevents the accumulation of zombie initiatives that consume resources without producing value.

You've established funding models, built your CoEI, implemented value measurement, and created governance frameworks. Now the question is sustainability, how do you maintain innovation momentum year after year?

The answer lies in creating a virtuous cycle where demonstrated value generates increased investment. When stakeholders see clear returns from platform innovations, they're willing to fund more. This requires consistent communication, transparent reporting, and celebration of wins.

Build innovation into your annual planning process. Rather than treating platform improvements as discretionary spending that gets cut when budgets tighten, establish a baseline innovation allocation (typically 10-15% of total platform spend) that's protected. This predictable funding enables multi-year capability development rather than short-term tactical fixes.

Develop your innovation pipeline systematically. The CoEI should maintain a backlog of evaluated, prioritised opportunities ready for funding. When budget becomes available or strategic priorities shift, you can move quickly rather than starting from scratch. This pipeline approach smooths innovation delivery and prevents feast-or-famine cycles.

Invest in capability building continuously. As your platform evolves, so must your team's skills. Allocate funding for training, certifications, and knowledge sharing. Teams with strong capabilities deliver innovations faster and more reliably, improving returns and stakeholder confidence.

Finally, evolve your frameworks based on experience. What works in year one may need adjustment as your platform matures. Regularly review your funding models, prioritisation criteria, and governance processes. Adapt them to your organisation's changing needs whilst maintaining the core principles of strategic alignment, value measurement, and transparent decision-making.

ServiceNow innovation isn't optional, it's how you maintain competitive advantage in an increasingly digital world. But innovation without financial strategy is just expensive experimentation.

The organisations that extract maximum value from their platform investments think like portfolio managers, not project managers. They establish clear funding models that balance strategic and tactical needs. They build governance frameworks that enable rather than constrain. They measure value rigorously and communicate returns transparently. They treat innovation as systematic capability development, not ad-hoc project work.

This isn't bureaucracy, it's strategic discipline. It's the difference between platforms that continuously evolve to meet business needs and those that stagnate under the weight of unfunded ambition.

You've seen the framework. You understand the principles. The question is: will your organisation make the investment in financial governance that makes sustained innovation possible?

That's where The Platform Operating Manual comes in. We provide the detailed playbooks, templates, and real-world examples that take you from concept to implementation. Our guides show you exactly how to establish your CoEI, build prioritisation frameworks that stick, create value measurement dashboards that resonate with finance, and navigate the political challenges of changing how innovation gets funded.

We'll show you the funding model variations that work in different organisational contexts, the governance structures that enable rather than constrain, and the stakeholder engagement strategies that turn sceptics into advocates. You'll get the business case templates, the prioritisation scorecards, and the value tracking frameworks that make this real.

Don't let unclear funding models limit your platform's potential. Check back in with The Platform Operating Manual soon and transform how your organisation invests in ServiceNow innovation.

The concept of systematic innovation funding has roots in an unexpected place: Renaissance Florence's textile guilds. In the 15th century, these guilds established the first formal investment committees to evaluate new weaving techniques and dyeing processes. They created standardised evaluation criteria, staged funding based on prototype success, and systematic value measurement to determine which innovations deserved continued investment.

The Arte della Lana (Wool Guild) pioneered what we'd now call portfolio management; balancing safe, incremental improvements with riskier, transformational innovations. They even established the equivalent of a Centre of Excellence, where master craftsmen evaluated proposals, shared best practices, and trained others in successful techniques.

This 600-year-old framework mirrors modern innovation governance remarkably well: clear evaluation criteria, risk-adjusted funding, value demonstration, and knowledge sharing. The tools have changed from looms to platforms, but the fundamental challenge remains the same, how do you systematically invest in innovation to maintain competitive advantage? The Florentine guilds understood something many modern organisations are still learning: innovation without financial discipline is just expensive chaos.